China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Equation]

You're so biased you can't see daylight. Here's a link to Trump's Cabinet picks, and it puts your "full of white guys thinking like him" to shame. But hey, your mind is made up, so facts aren't likely to change it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Only two minorities? Elaine Chow and Ben Carson? OOOOO wow, so diversify! Meanwhile the rest of them are whites. Ya got me there buddy.

So grabbing women's kitty cat and making derogatory statements towards Muslim is okay in your book?

 

[AssassinsMace]

The problem with Obama was if it was Hillary pulling the strings, he was then a terrible President. The Atlantic article I mentioned before was an interview over his foreign policy. The guy didn't take the blame for any of his foreign policy failures. It was always someone else's or some other country's fault. I waited until Hillary left office as Secretary of State and Obama was still poking China in the eye. The Pivot to Asia started these Far East Asian tensions which was the worst since the darkest days of the Cold War. And all of this started as reported by the news media because Obama felt dissed by China when they sent a low level official to meet with him at the UN sponsored climate summit at Copenhagen during his first year in office. And why did China send a low level official to meet with him? It was because even before the summit started US officials were setting up China to blame for its failure to cover-up that Congress was never going to ratify anything agreed coming out of Copenhagen thus Obama was going to look like Bush at Kyoto where he was blamed for Kyoto's failure because Congress failed to ratify thus killing what was agreed upon by the nations of the world. So all these tensions are because Obama's ego was hurt. The only reason why he was dissed was because he was clearly trying to frame China for the failure at Copenhagen so he wouldn't get blamed and have that mark on him. He's really no different from Trump being the Disruptor-in-Chief trying to change the status quo that's been accepted for decades.

 

[tphuang]

I disagree on Obama.

There is a vast gulf between what he says and what he does.

He makes good speeches, but I always saw him as deeply calculating and manipulative, willing to say just about anything necessary to get things his way.

He made reasonable sounding speaches, but his actions were anything but reasonable. Some notable foreign policy examples include how he tried to screw China on climate deal talks; tried to aggressively 'counter' Chinese interests in Africa (and had a decisive role in Libya, which forced the famous masses evacuation operation by the PLAN, but also cost China massive amounts in lost investments); and most unforgivably, directly caused the he current tensions in the SCS but sabotaging China's attempt to strike a historic resolution of the disputes and actively encouraging the other claimants like Vietnam and the Philippines to go on a land grabbing frenzy.

I know you put all of that on Hillary's tab, but I think it's unfair to heap the responsibility of all US foreign policy decisions on her.

She was the face and voice of US foreign policy, but you'd have to be reading alternative facts to think the core ideas and policy didn't come from Obama, or at a minimum got the nod from him.

Obama didn't 'do' much because of his personal weakness and obsession with his image and legacy, not because he was friendly towards China.

He got the flak he did from China mostly because people saw through his facade and despised his two-faced nature and bare faced hypocrisy.

Say what you will about Trump, at least he is open and honest about his intentions to put America first. As opposed to Obama who talked all rainbows and unicorns but had pretty much the same agenda as far as maintaining American primacy.

I take offense that you use "alternative facts" to describe what I read.

I don't put it all on Hilary's tab. I think your reply shows that you blame him for many things he did that led to Chinese losses. When those things any previous American leader would've done the same and been more aggressive. That's my opinion on this matter. Unless you think American president's role is to stand by and let China build itself up as hegemon in East Asia. No American leader that cares about America's supremacy in the world and its allies in the region would stand by while China expands its influence.

Once Trump turns his head firmly onto China, we will see how ugly this fight will be. I don't want to be moderating this forum when that happens.

 

[tphuang]

Only two minorities? Elaine Chow and Ben Carson? OOOOO wow, so diversify! Meanwhile the rest of them are whites. Ya got me there buddy.

So grabbing women's kitty cat and making derogatory statements towards Muslim is okay in your book?

equation, please watch out your language. You can just say that he is misogynist rather saying what you said.

Guys, please use respectful language on this forum.

 

[Dolcevita]

SCS Strategy is teach history education to Trump Cabinet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

February 8, 2017 11:03 am JST
China says United States should 'brush up on' South China Sea history
BEIJING (Reuters) -- The United States needs to brush up on its history about the South China Sea, as World War Two-related agreements mandated that all Chinese territories taken by Japan had to be returned to China, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in Australia.

China has been upset by previous comments from the new U.S. administration about the disputed waterway.

In his Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said China should not be allowed access to islands it has built there. The White House also vowed to defend "international territories" in the strategic waterway.

However, last week U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis suggested that diplomacy should be the priority in the South China Sea.

In comments carried on the foreign ministry's website late on Tuesday, Wang said he had a "suggestion" for this American friends. "Brush up on the history of World War Two," Wang was quoted as saying during a visit to Canberra, Australia.

The 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Declaration clearly state that Japan had to return to China all Chinese territory taken by Japan, Wang said.

"This includes the Nansha Islands," he added, using China's name for the Spratly Islands.

"In 1946, the then-Chinese government with help from the United States openly and in accordance with the law took back the Nansha Islands and reefs that Japan had occupied, and resumed exercising sovereignty," Wang said.

"Afterwards, certain countries around China used illegal methods to occupy some of the Nansha islands and reefs, and it's this that created the so-called South China Sea dispute."

China is committed to having talks with the parties directly involved, and in accordance with historical facts and international law to peacefully resolve the issue, and that position will not change, Wang said.

Countries outside the region should support the efforts of China and others in the region to maintain the peace and stability of the South China Sea, and not do the opposite, he added.

China sets great store on Mattis' comments stressing diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea, as this is not only the position set by China and Southeast Asia but also the "correct choice" for countries outside the region, Wang said.

China claims most of the South China Sea, while Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei claim parts of the waters that command strategic sea lanes and have rich fishing grounds along with oil and gas deposits.

 

[plawolf]

I take offense that you use "alternative facts" to describe what I read.

Well no offence was intended, but please point me to a creditable source that would suggest the US president does not get ultimate say on US foreign policy, and that it is rather the foreign secretary that sets US foreign policy aims, objectives and strategy as you seemed to suggest.

I don't put it all on Hilary's tab. I think your reply shows that you blame him for many things he did that led to Chinese losses. When those things any previous American leader would've done the same and been more aggressive. That's my opinion on this matter. Unless you think American president's role is to stand by and let China build itself up as hegemon in East Asia. No American leader that cares about America's supremacy in the world and its allies in the region would stand by while China expands its influence.

Well I think that bolded sentence is both profoundly misguided and dangerous, and ultimately self defeating, but sadly seems to be the predominant view in the west.

The role and job of the US President is to best serve US interests, not to actively undermine someone else's.

To suggest that the role of the US president is to counter China at every turn is to set China and the US on a path that can only end in war.

The very premise of that line of thinking is that the competition for influence is a zero sum game, but it is not. China gaining influence does not necessarily mean the US looses it. Countries can and do enjoy very good relations with both.

Often it is only when one side presses countries to choose between China and America that all sides looses out.

At the heart of the issue isn't actually even influence, but power, specifically military power.

The US wants to keep a loaded hand cannon cocked and pointed at China's head all the time. Is it any wonder China finds that intolerable?

Even if the US withdraws all military forces from Asia, what the hell do the chicken hawks in Washington expect? That China would just annex everyone else? I seriously doubt there are many that delusional.

The US pulling out military assets does not mean a political or economic retreat.

US military presence in Asia didn't even really make sense at the height of the Cold War, much less now.

It is a shield against no enemy, which is why elements of the US are so hell bent to cast China as the new 'Evil Empire', to justify the massive US military presence in the region and line their own pockets with arms profits.

Once Trump turns his head firmly onto China, we will see how ugly this fight will be. I don't want to be moderating this forum when that happens.

There we can agree on. The more he is beset at home, the greater the temptation for him to engineer a crisis or conflict abroad to redirect attention and rally the masses under the flag of patriotism.

 

[SampanViking]

I disagree on Obama.

There is a vast gulf between what he says and what he does.

He makes good speeches, but I always saw him as deeply calculating and manipulative, willing to say just about anything necessary to get things his way.

He made reasonable sounding speaches, but his actions were anything but reasonable. Some notable foreign policy examples include how he tried to screw China on climate deal talks; tried to aggressively 'counter' Chinese interests in Africa (and had a decisive role in Libya, which forced the famous masses evacuation operation by the PLAN, but also cost China massive amounts in lost investments); and most unforgivably, directly caused the he current tensions in the SCS but sabotaging China's attempt to strike a historic resolution of the disputes and actively encouraging the other claimants like Vietnam and the Philippines to go on a land grabbing frenzy.

I know you put all of that on Hillary's tab, but I think it's unfair to heap the responsibility of all US foreign policy decisions on her.

She was the face and voice of US foreign policy, but you'd have to be reading alternative facts to think the core ideas and policy didn't come from Obama, or at a minimum got the nod from him.

Obama didn't 'do' much because of his personal weakness and obsession with his image and legacy, not because he was friendly towards China.

He got the flak he did from China mostly because people saw through his facade and despised his two-faced nature and bare faced hypocrisy.

Say what you will about Trump, at least he is open and honest about his intentions to put America first. As opposed to Obama who talked all rainbows and unicorns but had pretty much the same agenda as far as maintaining American primacy.

Hi Wolfie

For obvious reasons, I do not want to go too far down this road. I will however simply remind people that their is a huge difference between Leaders and Managers. I sure its equally obvious that all will know what I mean and that there will be no need to dwell on the matter in detail or spell it out.

 

[tphuang]

Well no offence was intended, but please point me to a creditable source that would suggest the US president does not get ultimate say on US foreign policy, and that it is rather the foreign secretary that sets US foreign policy aims, objectives and strategy as you seemed to suggest.

I did not say anywhere that US president does not get ultimate say in the policy. I simply stated Hilary was a hawk. I said Obama's positions against China were just expected of a US leader. And you just have to say I use "alternate fact".

This is very offensive to me. I'm serious, where in the world did I say what you are accusing me of?

Well I think that bolded sentence is both profoundly misguided and dangerous, and ultimately self defeating, but sadly seems to be the predominant view in the west.

The role and job of the US President is to best serve US interests, not to actively undermine someone else's.

To suggest that the role of the US president is to counter China at every turn is to set China and the US on a path that can only end in war.

The very premise of that line of thinking is that the competition for influence is a zero sum game, but it is not. China gaining influence does not necessarily mean the US looses it. Countries can and do enjoy very good relations with both.

Often it is only when one side presses countries to choose between China and America that all sides looses out.

At the heart of the issue isn't actually even influence, but power, specifically military power.

The US wants to keep a loaded hand cannon cocked and pointed at China's head all the time. Is it any wonder China finds that intolerable?

Even if the US withdraws all military forces from Asia, what the hell do the chicken hawks in Washington expect? That China would just annex everyone else? I seriously doubt there are many that delusional.

The US pulling out military assets does not mean a political or economic retreat.

US military presence in Asia didn't even really make sense at the height of the Cold War, much less now.

It is a shield against no enemy, which is why elements of the US are so hell bent to cast China as the new 'Evil Empire', to justify the massive US military presence in the region and line their own pockets with arms profits.

There we can agree on. The more he is beset at home, the greater the temptation for him to engineer a crisis or conflict abroad to redirect attention and rally the masses under the flag of patriotism.

I will just say that I'm around the Republican donors and Washington establishment types more than great majority of people here. And they all think the administration has been too easy on China over South China Sea. Most of them think climate change is a China only problem. Whether you think it's justified for US administration to try to slow down China and help countries like Japan, that's irrelevant. I'm just stating that thing are going to get a lot more turbulent.

 

[plawolf]

I did not say anywhere that US president does not get ultimate say in the policy. I simply stated Hilary was a hawk. I said Obama's positions against China were just expected of a US leader. And you just have to say I use "alternate fact".

This is very offensive to me. I'm serious, where in the world did I say what you are accusing me of?

I feel like this is getting into semantics, but I feel it is important to clear things up as I did not intend to cause you offence.

Firstly my original words were:

She was the face and voice of US foreign policy, but you'd have to be reading alternative facts to think the core ideas and policy didn't come from Obama, or at a minimum got the nod from him.

Note that's a conditional comment, conditional on someone believing it's not the US President, but rather foreign secretary who determines US foreign policy.

That is such a demonstrably false position that I don't think it unreasonable to question if people are reading alternative facts to believe so.

Since you stated you do not believe that, then that does not apply to you, as I expected.

The strength of my original comment was more to do with my incredulity that a highly intelligent and knowledgeable person like you would apparently suggest the blame for US foreign policy should lie with the FS rather than POTUS, as if Hillary called the shots on US foreign policy instead of Obama.

I will just say that I'm around the Republican donors and Washington establishment types more than great majority of people here. And they all think the administration has been too easy on China over South China Sea. Most of them think climate change is a China only problem. Whether you think it's justified for US administration to try to slow down China and help countries like Japan, that's irrelevant. I'm just stating that thing are going to get a lot more turbulent.

Well we broadly agree on the facts, but I fundamentally disagree on the interpretation.

Yes, playing spoiler to China has become the norm for US presidents. But just because they all tend to do that does not in any way, shape or form make that a reasonable part of the job of being president.

That's like suggesting taking bribes and kick backs is part of your job description because your predecessors and colleges mostly did it.

The right and wrong of things are also fundamentally important to charting a peaceful way out of the geographical minefield China and America find themselves in.

If America takes a wildly unreasonable position, as the majority of establishment types and right wing donors have in your observation, then the overwhelming burden is on them to take a more reasonable approach, not for the victim of their excesses to just lump it and get used to the bullying and abuse. Especially if said victim has the means and will not to stand up for what is right.

As I said before, the current path America has embarked on leads to a very dangerous and almost unavoidable destination. It is in all of our collective interest that they change course before it's too late.

That is why it is more important than ever that people stand up for what they know is right rather than just acquaintance to wrongdoing just because that has become the norm.

 

[mr.bean]

hillary was a ''hawk'' but there shouldn't be any question Obama is the boss who commanded the ''hawk''. hillary was only Secretary of State for one term, John Kerry took the post after her and the Pivot was no less intense.